Obesity Negatively Impacts Aerobic Capacity Improvements Both Acutely and 1‐Year Following Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) produces a host of health benefits related to modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the influence of body weight, assessed through BMI, on acute and long-term improvements in aerobic capacity following completion of CR. Three thousand nine hundred and ninety seven subjects with coronary artery disease (CAD) participated in a 12-week multidisciplinary CR program. Subjects underwent an exercise test to determine peak estimated metabolic equivalents (eMETs) and BMI assessment at baseline, immediately following CR completion and at 1-year follow-up. Normal weight subjects at 1-year follow-up demonstrated the greatest improvement in aerobic fitness and best retention of those gains (gain in peak METs: 0.95 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). Although the improvement was significant (P < 0.001), subjects who were initially classified as obese had the lowest aerobic capacity and poorest retention in CR fitness gains at 1-year follow-up (gain in peak eMETs: 0.69 ± 1.2). Subjects initially classified as overweight by BMI had a peak eMET improvement that was also significantly better (P < 0.05) than obese subjects at 1-year follow-up (gain in peak eMETs: 0.82 ± 1.1). Significant fitness gains, one of the primary beneficial outcomes of CR, can be obtained by all subjects irrespective of BMI classification. However, obese patients have poorer baseline fitness and are more likely to "give back" fitness gains in the long term. Obese CAD patients may therefore benefit from additional interventions to enhance the positive adaptations facilitated by CR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".